Talk:Suicide among Native Americans in the United States

Notes

Several existing articles contain some information or a brief mention of suicide among Native Americans in the United States. Most notably, the article Contemporary Native American issues in the United States. I plan to create a link from the Suicide section of that article to this one so that the important topic can be further elaborated on without disturbing the balance of other articles. Please see my user page for more details about my planned work. --Marycneal (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to edit this article and will have improved the organization with sections and sub-sections by October 24, 2017. --Marycneal (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marycneal, it looks like this was tagged for deletion a few hours after it was created because you'd started the draft and then wasn't able to really pick it back up until about a day later. Be careful with this, as the expectation with articles is that it should be complete enough to stand on its own as soon as it's created because once it's live, it can be nominated for deletion. While you did leave a note, the problem is that sometimes people will leave notes and then never actually pick the article back up. I typically start my articles in my userspace, as this gives me more time to work on the article before I move it live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is the type of deletion where you can remove the template if you wish and halt the deletion. The other ones aren't like this, though. Offhand, I've tagged the person who put the deletion template on the article to see what he thinks of the article now. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed), thank you so much for the advice!

Proposed deletion

Hi JamesBWatson, could you take a look at this article now and see what you think? It's now larger than it was originally. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): Yes, there's certainly far more content than there was when I made the deletion proposal. However, I remain unconvinced that giving this topic such substantial coverage isn't giving it undue weight. One of the many problems with these so-called "education" projects is that they tend to encourage a student to find a subject to create an article on because they need a subject to create an article on, rather than because they know of a subject which could do with an article. Sometimes this results in articles with various problems, such as having subjects which are not at all notable; on this occasion it has resulted in an article on a subject which is certainly notable enough for mention, but which I am not convinced warrants such extensive coverage. However, if you disagree and wish to contest the deletion proposal then I shall not complain. There are far bigger problems for me to spend my time on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see your argument, however I do think that there's enough information to justify a more in-depth look at the topic at the very least. Whether it's enough to warrant its own article or it should be summarized for the section in the main article is something that can be debated, but I think that this is something that would more belong at AfD. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson and Shalor (Wiki Ed) thank you both for the advice. I had originally planned on contributing to the main Contemporary issues article as you suggested, but decided to make a separate article considering the quantity of information which may not match the balance of the Contemporary issues article. I will continue to evaluate the best course of action with further input from my professor, you, and other advisors. --Marycneal (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic and Marycneal has listed over ten scholarly references that she plans to use in creating this article on her userpage. DStrassmann (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

This article uses links well, is very readable, and is organized in a coherent way. I wouldn't recommend any major changes, but when skimming the article, multiple source authors' names dotted throughout are confusing without explicitly stating "in a study" or similar language for clarity. To improve the article, I would suggest you go through and double check for typos and grammatical errors, as there are a few dotted throughout. Also, adding one or two illustrations would be nice. Overall, good work! Mhvla (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]